MovieChat Forums > The War Zone (1999) Discussion > Was movie altered? Was Jess predator!? (...

Was movie altered? Was Jess predator!? (CONTAINS SPOILERS!)

posted 16 years ago by kis-aleksandar
13 replies | jump to latest

There is something strange in thsi movie. I mean, its graet movie, acting also great, but...

There are certain scenes missing, and relations between characters are also strange.
Lets start:

1. First time that brother realises that sister and father have sexual relationship- incest is scene when he is going after shoping to the back door, passes by bathroom window and spot something.
We dont know what, ther is omissiom. By his reaction we can gues, something horrible is going on.
We guess incest is hapening when he confronts his sister. She is in denial.

2. Why brother is confronting his own sister if she is a victime!? He is accusing HER, not the father about it. In confrontation scene Jess is denying that anything happened with words:
"Nothing happened, I GOT in and HE GOT out".
It is obvius that SHE entered bathroom while father took bath, not otherway arround. We havent seen the scene.

Lets look at Ray Winstones (father) interview:

“I made a mistake, I think,” Winstone says. “I kind of put certain scenes in the back of my head like they were never going to happen. And when the day came, I wasn’t fully mentally prepared to do it.

Plural- SCENES, not infamous "bunker scene" but at least one more- bathroom scene!?

So with yopu that have DVD look that confrontation scene. Sister is naked, brushing her hair, yet brother is entering her room and she does nothing to cover herself up. Brother is crushed and she dosent act as a victime. Brother is actually accusing HER. She is calming HIM down.

3. Brother continues to pressure his siter, accusing HAR of incest, not the father.
Second confrontation scene is when brother awaits Jess after beac party. He openly says "I saw evrything", she denies and he busrtsm openly phisicaly attacking sister throwing HER on the ground. Not a single confrontation with the father. He beats her up and at one point, brother is hugging Jes, and again, look better, she is hugging him bac, allmost comforting HIM, not the way arround.

4. In One scene, brother finds naked pictures of his sister and his father.
Just look closely at that brief moment. Jess is posing for pictures, but two following are interesting: One shows sister, Jess naked with ANOTHER girl, mugshot taken by father, probably. That other girl (allthou mugshots are low quality is that Carol, Jess friend that she takes her brother to lose his virginity in london!? So it is not "secret sexual abusement" it was "thing" that went way before rape scene in bunker!

Lets see ray Winstones interview:

I felt like there was an ambiguity with Jesse, with how much control she had, with how much of a victim she was. Is that ...

There should never be confusion as to whether she's a victim. If [her father] crosses the line, he crosses the line -- even if he was invited. There's no ambiguity in that, there's black and white. Everything else is a gray area.

If your child goes to you and says, "I want to **** you," what do you do? I'm not saying that that happened -- by the way -- but some people see the film in that way. It's up for interpretation. But do you cross the line? You're an abuser. It's straightforward.
....

SO! Invited!?
Is it why we never seen bathroom scene?

5. After "Bunker rape scene"m that is actuylly single evidence that father is predator, brother, again does not confront father- but his sister. This time she openly invites brother to harm HER "It will make you feel better"!!
Better!? If his sister was raped, why would he feel better if he hurts her!?

6. Father is shown as mild-minded person. Even in joint scenes, Jess is verbally molesting father, openly provoking him. Only time that she and brother confronts him is- movies ending.

7. Brother confronts yet again, Jess showing a photo to her. Both of them are allmost naked, Jess is naked. He is going on a top of her.
At this moment, if we accept that Jess was predator, not the father, her brothers rage is logical- if HE IS JALLOUS to his father and HE wants to make love to sister. It can be explained if he is jaleous because she choosed father over him!?
At that scene, Jess explaines it all "I FELT NEGLECTED!" she explains her brothers actions "Its not about dad and me, isnt it!? You just want to know about sex!?"
Jess is asking brother "Would you like me to talk with your girlfriend (into having sex with you)?
Brother negates that says "Im keeping picture" Jess cryes herself to sleep.
Was brother blackmailing her into sex with him!?

8. Scene of brothers loss of virginity. Jess takes him to Carol. Most probably hers sex partner from those mugshots. Look at how close are two of girls. Look at the hug Carol gives to Jess. Than after short time, Carol is asked by Jess to have sex with Jess brother. Indicates that Jess and Carol are most probably sex games partners. Jess stops them in moment when they allmost hade sex. Look at the facial expression on Carols face! She allmost asks Jess "I cant believe that you are doing this!"
Next what we see is brother sleeping in the bedroom, while Jess is allmost naked, drinking in the chair. It indicates that he lost his virginity to her.

9. Night drivee scene. Brother and Jess are in the car coming from hospital. Brother asks her about her sex with father, asking about specific sex act with words "Is that the only way you like it!?"
Now that, maybe insignificant scene brings us to the point- "Bunker rape scene"- wass added. That specific sex act was shown at rape scene- as forcefull rape, yet brother asks her "Is that the only way you like it!?"
Contradictory...

Anyway... just guidelines for thoughtys on movie...

Lara Belmont is anyway, fantastic.

[–] kis-aleksandar 16 years ago

If anyone whishes to know more about Lara Belmont:
http://larabelmont.wordpress.com/

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LesBiehn 16 years ago

I actually think the film can be seen from the brothers perspective, his adolescence and desire for his sister. The abusive moments between the daughter and the dad are pretty much always mediated through a window or a video camera as if they are some paranoid fantasy the brother is having.

[–] combatreview 16 years ago

>>>I actually think the film can be seen from the brothers perspective, his adolescence and desire for his sister.

Yes, absolutely - they hold at bay, for some quite some time, the definite proof to the audience that incest is occurring, and there is a lot in the film about the sexual tension between the siblings.

[–] Agent_KT31 16 years ago

I actually just read this book and then watched the movie. In the book, she was more of a volunteer than a victim. In fact, (SPOILER BELOW)

She wanted a baby with him but he wouldn't give it to her. Nor do they kill the father. I suggest checking out the book- its similar but with a few details altered. Also Nick has more of a part in the book and finds out about his new girlfriend's activities as well. Hope that helps.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/James-Sunderland/Jamessignature.gif[/IMG]

[–] erinagallagher 16 years ago

I think the ambiguity takes place, as some posters have noted, because the story is being told through Tom's perspective. Tom sees his sister as a mature sexual being, whereas his dad is...his Dad. So when he sees the two of them together in the bathroom, he immediately is angry at his sister...she is more morally ambiguous in his mind, and also a FAR safer person to direct his anger towards then his dad. The whole movie is slowly showing how Tom is realizing that his sister IS the victim, and that his father is capable of victimizing her.

I think the further sexualized scenes (Tom with Jess's friend, etc.) are to show what a messed up person Jess has become, and about how love and sex are confusing, overlapping concepts to her. (I don't think she had sex with Tom, but if she had, that to be would be further evidence of longstanding abuse...lots of children who've gone through incest from a young age have some serious boundary issues, see sex as an act of affection, etc.)

I don't know...the book obviously tells a very different story...but as someone who's worked with a lot of incest survivors, I can't see Jess as anything other than a little girl with a douche of a father, scared and confused and alone. Attempts to blame an incest survivor (or any sexual abuse victim) as perpetrators is, to me, completely wrong.

[–] Agent_KT31 16 years ago

Well I hope you don't think anyone is implying that here (although I'm pretty sure you weren't). That's just the difference between the book and the movie. I don't think the book meant to portray it that way either- the book I think was just a different twist on incest stories and I think probably one that movie audiences may not be able to hand or just don't wish to see- not that I blame them of course- just making a point.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/James-Sunderland/Jamessignature.gif[/IMG]

[–] rock0052 16 years ago

It's not about blaming the victim though, it's a question of how much of a victim is she in the first place, and it what roles? I know a family where an underaged step-sister actually seduced and initiated sex with her step brother that was slightly older just to turn him in afterwards because he was on probation. Doesn't mean he's not to blame, but it doesn't make her completely innocent, either. My take is that Jess is not as victimized as Tom sees her. Why? Because any control she might not have dealing with the dad, she takes in dealing with Tom by playing (and winning) mind games with him, who clearly isn't on the emotional level she is.

Part of why this film works is because it eschews the typical "110% monster, 110% victim" mantra and makes things a lot more gray than black and white. Throughout the film (I haven't read the book) it's clear that Jess treats Tom less like a brother, and more like a boy she's playing hard to get with. Running off with another boy while he waits, not bothering to cover up around him, and realizing she can't fight her feelings towards him when she initially sends her friend in to have sex with him.

At the end of the day, there are no heroes in this movie. And, there are no 100% villains, either. Just a messed up story of people dealing with an uglysituation with no real "right" answer.

[–] Agent_KT31 16 years ago

That's a good analysis. Didn't think of it in that way before.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/James-Sunderland/Jamessignature.gif[/IMG]

[–] li72 15 years ago

a lot of the OP's points can be explained by combatreview's comment in a another post:

"Yes, because he was angry at her, and because he blames her. He wouldn't be the first person to have blamed somebody like that. For example, it's far from uncommon for husbands to find themselves blaming their wives for being raped, as illogical as that maybe. Tom's behaviour towards his sister is actually a pretty normal reaction to an abnormal situation - and of course it's easier for him to blame and confront his sister, and take his pain out on her, than it would be to confront his father. Remember, confronting his father is the last straw - that's the end of his family, and of his Dad. As soon as he says that to another person, he's lost his father forever, and has to see every single positive memory of his caring father as a poisonous lie. Tom has a LOT to lose by admitting the truth to himself and to others, even though he's seen it with his own eyes. Frankly, he could stand to lose his mother too - that also happens, where a mother sides with the father in face of that kind of accusation, and the child is blamed or treated as ill or abnormal. Tom only speaks up because of the baby, but if he'd done that before the baby was hospitalised, do you think he'd have the force of personality to convince his mother over his father's denial? Or do we think it would have been seen as disturbed, attention-seeking behaviour from an alienated teenager?"

essentially, the boy's own perceptions and anger led him to make the wrong assumptions - which happens a lot in our own society...without the knowledge of the psychology behind sexual abuse and sexuality people incorrectly make (derogatory and demeaning) assumptions about women who show sexual behaviour that isn't seen as "pure" or "proper"...

whenever you decide that a girl/woman is being a "whore", please think, really think, about why she may be acting that way, about what her life must be like and if her behaviour is really "whorish" or actually just is...

[–] Burntout 15 years ago

I 100% agree with these statements here that the blame is on the father. But the film never gets past this uneasy feeling between brother and sister. I began to realize that Roth probably meant this as a form of denial in that Tom could not handle the truth at first. His father is also in complete denial (it's a visceral feeling you get when he confronts his dad that hey, he really believes he's innocent...maybe!) but then once I finally decided that this was a fact (despite the previous feelings as posted by the OP that maybe there was more than meets the eye between sibling here) we hit the final scene where we go to the only "hard" evidence from the point of view of the brother and he asks his sister "What are WE going to do?" And then as if to completely fry my brain, the film ends with the door being slammed shut by a person who is emotionally damaged and stunted (who wouldn't be???) and it ends. If this was supposed to be a one way view of a disaster of a family it doesn't work out b/c I am left with way too many open-ended questions about another relationship that is never even, in my view, halfway realized. Then again if this is what was meant to happen...that we truly question the relationship between brother and sister well...I'm not sure it ends in the right way either. It's a very disturbing film but I'm not entirely certain it was meant to be more than the sum of its parts.

I don't know if that makes any sense but it's all that's running through my drunken head right now at 7 in the morning.

[–] Synisterclyde 14 years ago

It is very common for a victim of rape/abuse/incest to either become repulsed by sex, or over-sexed. She gets her self-worth from the joy she gives her father. It's easier for the son to blame his sister and see his dad as a victim. It's too hurtful the other way around.

His dad has rationalized his behavior and compartmentalized it. When he is confronted he doesnt like the label/guilt/shame of it.

It's also possible that the son has feelings towards his sister. She does seem to toy with him. There may be some jealousy there. Probably lots of crazy goofed up emotions in this situation. Closing the door implies the incest continues.
________________________________________
Henry:Portrait.. 8
Crazyheart 8
Manhatten 8.5